Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLIV, 2009 doi: 10.2143/IA.44.0.2034383 NEW EVIDENCE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” BY Massoud AZARNOUSH (Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran) Abstract: Partly standing-partly excavated remains of a monument in Kangavar, a town in western Iran between Hamadan and Kermanshah, have been dated to the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods. In an article published in 1981, nevertheless, M. Azarnoush argues in favour of a late Sasanian date for this site. The discovery of a brick under the massive masonry of the western platform of the monument in the course of later excavations provided the possibility for thermoluminescence dating of this sample. The TL reading of the brick confi rms the Sasanian date of the monument. The present article intends to assess this and some other new information about the site. Keywords: W-Iran, Kangavar, Anahita Temple, Sasanian, chronology I- Introduction In an article published in 1981, I argued in favour of a late Sasanian date for the monument of Kangavar, frequently labelled the “Anahita Temple” (Azarnoush 1981: 69-94, Pl. 12-19). By that time I had completed two seasons of excavations on this site, following fi ve seasons of work headed by Seyfollâh-e Kâmbakhsh-e Fard, another Iranian archaeologist of whose expeditions I am certainly honoured to have been a member. Reasons backing the new chronology may be outlined in the following: – Isidor of Charax is the oldest author who mentions the presence of an Artemis Temple in Concobar, most probably the Greek pronunciation for the Iranian Kangavar. For the reasons explained in my article (Azarnoush 1981: 82-84) I have suggested that the identifi cation of the Artemis Temple of Concobar with that of Anahita is a misinterpretation of Isidor’s writings. In addition, there is not a single piece of evidence in favour of an iden- tifi cation of the remains under discussion as those of the Artemis Temple mentioned by Isidor. 11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339393 220-03-20090-03-2009 112:54:072:54:07 394 M. AZARNOUSH – Unlike Kambakhsh-e Fard, the excavator of the Parthian-early Sasanian cemetery on the eastern slopes of the hill — next to the eastern platform of the monument, who considers the presence of this graveyard as a proof of the sanctity of the site, I have argued that this cemetery was not different from other cemeteries of this period. Parthian cemeteries so far excavated in the region, from Hamadan to Kermanshah, have been established on wastelands. There is therefore no reason why this ceme- tery should have been different. During the Parthian-early Sasanian periods, therefore, this place must have been a desolate land (Azarnoush 1981: 82-84) – Texier, Flandin and Coste are at the head of a long list of authors who date the monument to the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods. They con- sider the style of masonry in Kangavar to be Greek, albeit to varying degrees — from “exceptionally close to the Attic order” to “impure and degenerate”. The date of the monument, therefore, was basically estab- lished on stylistic considerations. I argued that these stylistic comparisons and conclusions do not with- stand more rigorous study. The style of the masonry in Kangavar may be more closely compared with that of Taq-e Garrâ, a small monument usually attributed to the late Sasanian period and the horseshoe arch which is narrowly comparable to those of sixth-seventh century Syrian works (Azarnoush 1981: 78-82, 90). – While the proportions between various elements of the Greek orders, including those of the height and diameter, of the base, shaft, and the capital, are of utmost importance to their “Greekness”; in the columns of Kangavar these proportions are so dissimilar to the Greek orders pro- portion that no real analogy is conceivable. The proportions of the columns of Kangavar are akin to the pillars in some late Sasanian-Early Islamic excavated monuments (Azarnoush 1981: 89-90). – A considerable number of stone pieces, both worked and untouched, bear mason marks. Some of these are single words, in Middle Persian, inscribed on the inner faces of masonry blocks. These are dated on the scripts’ stylistic characteristics, by Richard Frye and Vladimir Lukonin, respectively, to the Middle and Late Sasanian periods. 11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339494 220-03-20090-03-2009 112:54:072:54:07 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 395 For Kambakhsh-e Fard, the excavator, these inscriptions are proof of the reparations that the “Anahita Temple” underwent during the Sasanian period (Azarnoush 1981: 91-92). This is an unlikely possibility, since marking the repaired parts in a monument, in a way that it would be distinguishable from the original parts of the monument under repara- tion, is an extremely new idea, almost certainly unknown in the Sasa- nian period1. – Last but not least, Iranian and Arab historians/geographers unanimously date the monument to the reign of Khosrow II (A.D. 590-628) (Azarnoush 1981: 69-70, 84-85). Although this point in itself may be of little weight in the present discussion, yet, added to the abovementioned, it provides additional arguments in favour of my suggestion. Mainly for these reasons, and in disagreement with previous opinions, I concluded that: 1- The monument in Kangavar should be dated to the late Sasanian period, most probably to the reign of Khosrow II. In addition: 2- I suggested a hypothetical reconstruction. On the basis of one impost block discovered in the southwest corner of the monument and belong- ing to the hance of an arch, I proposed that arches similar to that of Taq-e Garrâ may have spanned the spaces between columns/pillars, cre- ating an arcade (Azarnoush 1981: 82, fi gs. 8-9). This point, too, was in disagreement with the fl at roof suggested by Texier and accepted unanimously. 1 It would imply that the Sasanians were so familiar with modern conceptions of repa- ration and reconstruction of ancient monuments that they respected all modern standards in this regard; that is, when they repaired the “Anahita Temple” in Kangavar they care- fully dismounted the platforms, made the necessary reparations while putting their marks on the new pieces of masonry so that the new pieces would be distinguishable from the old ones, and then put the Greek styled columns back on their original locations! 11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339595 220-03-20090-03-2009 112:54:072:54:07 396 M. AZARNOUSH 3- Finally, in a lecture delivered to a colloquium organized by the fourth expedition in Kangavar (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 254-257) I argued that the construction might have remained incomplete2. II- New Evidence Once my excavations came to an abrupt end in 1979, in 1985 a third expe- dition was organized, headed by Ali-e Valinouri and lasting one season. Afterwards, a fourth expedition, this time under the joint supervision of architect Mohammad-e Mehryâr and archaeologist Ahmad-e Kabiri, worked for several years, from 1988 to 2001. Alongside several seasons of excava- tions they also concentrated on conservation and reconstruction works. A report of their activities was subsequently published (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004). This publication includes new evidence in favour of the triple con- clusions I had reached, as mentioned above. Here I intend to assess the new information. II-1- Chronology While making the preliminary investigations and damage evaluation on part of the western platform, in 1999 the fourth expedition came across a brick fi rmly embedded in gypsum mortar and situated, under the heavy stone blocks and gypsum masonry of the platform, directly on the bedrock. It was located at the end of a test trench (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 297) about 4.20 to 4.90 m. east of the still standing blocks of the platform’s façade (fi gs. 1-3). The discovery of this brick provided the expedition with an unexpected opportunity to go beyond the relative, and disputed, chro- nology of site. The brick, therefore, was sent to the laboratories of Research Center for Conservation of Cultural Relics, ICHTO, for thermolumines- cence dating. The TL reading on the brick gave an age of 1570 ± 140. If we add the 140 years of deviation to the proposed age of the brick we obtain a date within the ruling years of the Sasanian king Khosrow I (A.D. 531-578), but if we subtract the deviation we will obtain a date within 2 In this lecture I also suggested that a strong infl uence of Late Antique “Syrian” craftsmanship can be detected in the masonry of the monument in Kangavar. Unfortu- nately the proceedings of this gathering remain unpublished. 11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339696 220-03-20090-03-2009 112:54:082:54:08 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 397 Fig. 1. Kangavar. General plan of the complex (Azarnoush 1981). 11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339797 220-03-20090-03-2009 112:54:082:54:08 398 M. AZARNOUSH Fig. 2. Kangavar. Plan of test trench (based on Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: Plan 13a). the ruling years of the Sasanian king Bahram II (A.D. 276-293) (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 115-116, 296-297; Bahrololoumi 2004: 297-298). It is obvious that this would be the date of burning the brick and may not be extended to the entire monument. In addition dating tests on only one sample would be hardly conclusive (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004). We certainly need more samples, if available, to be tested. Nevertheless, the whole range of probable ages of the tested brick fall well within the Sasanian period, from A.D. 276 to A.D. 578, and if we consider the result reliable, the reign of Bahram II may be taken as terminus a quo for the construction of the monument of Kangavar.